Javelin?

Truism · Post by **Truism** » 2009-10-27 04:40

No other conventional force uses the javelin?

I take it there's a good reason why the NZDF will be?

HangMan_ · Post by **HangMan_** » 2009-10-27 08:06

Yea i meant to change that in the design plan. Not sure what will replace it. For now it stays, we will deal with balance issues at a later date

Maxfragg · Post by **Maxfragg** » 2009-10-27 08:25

yeah, just leave the javelin to the devs, when they want it ingame, it will come but till now you shall find something different

HangMan_ · Post by **HangMan_** » 2009-10-27 08:28

Maxfragg wrote:yeah, just leave the javelin to the devs, when they want it ingame, it will come but till now you shall find something different

For now it stays. Lets be under no illusions, NZDF isn't going to be done overnight. But by the time it comes around to testing we will have found a suitable replacement... OR the Dev's may have produced a balanced Javelin.

Post by **Amok@ndy** » 2009-10-27 09:51

how to balance a javelin ?!?

taking out anytargets with a huge range
im not sure if there is a other similar weapon which can be given to the enemy team !

thats the same problem in ArmA

HangMan_ · Post by **HangMan_** » 2009-10-27 10:27

Amok@ndy wrote:how to balance a javelin ?!?

taking out anytargets with a huge range
im not sure if there is a other similar weapon which can be given to the enemy team !

thats the same problem in ArmA

I want to steer away from having to use the carl gustav. The javelin is the most appealing alternative

Maybe we will have it so it can only be used on a mode that fires like the other HAT's...

Truism · Post by **Truism** » 2009-10-27 10:40

What's wrong with an 84?

RHYS4190 · Post by **RHYS4190** » 2009-10-27 11:05

i have a vague memory, that the javelin has a direct fire mode, much like a tow or conventional Hat's.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2009-10-27 11:14

RHYS4190 wrote:i have a vague memory, that the javelin has a direct fire mode, much like a tow or conventional Hat's.

that'd be correct.

Truism wrote:No other conventional force uses the javelin?

I take it there's a good reason why the NZDF will be?

Conventional forces within PR?

WilsonPL · Post by **WilsonPL** » 2009-10-29 17:01

imo Javelin should be added with SRAW characteristics, or balance it with long 'lockon' time and option to aim only when in stationary pos.

=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup · Post by **=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup** » 2009-10-29 17:15

Well, I guess you could remove the HAT-kits and replace with some sort of deployable carl-gustav for an added punch xD ?

The suggestion clearly needs refining but if anyone follow me in the rough shape?

HangMan_ · Post by **HangMan_** » 2009-10-30 02:55

=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup wrote:Well, I guess you could remove the HAT-kits and replace with some sort of deployable carl-gustav for an added punch xD ?

The suggestion clearly needs refining but if anyone follow me in the rough shape?

Possibly.... The javelin is just so much cooler though

And it has the added advantage of being actually in-use with the New Zealand Defence force as opposed to some kind of Deployed Carl Gustav weapon station. We do use the Carl Gustav but so do the australians. We need the two factions to differ as much as possible

ChiefRyza · Post by **ChiefRyza** » 2009-10-30 03:19

Yes but the reason the ADF isn't using the Javelin is because limitations of the BF2 engine, and no proper (high quality) model.

It is our main anti-tank weapon as well, including the US Army and Marines. It isn't in game for a reason.

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 2009-10-31 10:12

I dont get people.

Javelin is realistic, and this mod is called Project ''Reality''?
In real life army doesnt say;
''hey, we cant issue our troops powerfull anti tank missiles/launchers becouse it would kill their tank quik you know''

If you really want to balance things out becouse its so ''overpowered'' think of a way to balance it in another way for example; the NZDF have good AT, but the enemie has better (something else)

Kenny · Post by **Kenny** » 2009-10-31 22:49

I think you might find the reason here FGM-148 Javelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now this is what I find most interesting and I quote
"Another advantage is the Javelin's power at impact. The missile's tandem shaped charge warhead is made to penetrate reactive armor. The Javelin was created with the intent to be able to penetrate any tank armor and was tested on the M1 Abrams. With the top attack mode it has an even greater ability to destroy the tank because it can attack where most tanks are weakest.[2]" and the Effective range is 75 to 2500m I don't know if you can even see that far in PR. This is why I think it hasn't been added yet because their will be no escape for enemy amour "its thermal targeting allows the Javelin to be a fire-and-forget system." So all you have to do is lock on and fire then you can go.
P.s I'm no expert but that's what I have read so if i'm wrong correct me.

McBumLuv · Post by **McBumLuv** » 2009-11-01 00:23

Well, don't forget that while you have to lock onto the vehicle, you still need to 1) visually acquire the vehicle, and 2) expose yourself for a longer period of time than you would have to if you were only firing at the target.

It's got it's pros and cons, and would otherwise include the fact that it takes longer to set up between direct firing and top attack with tracking.

It's not quite as simple as labeling it as "OP" that's keeping it out of PR, it's the fact that it's much easier to keep things symmetrically balanced, and there's not necessarily much interest in prioritizing this over everything else.

MonkeySoldier · Post by **MonkeySoldier** » 2009-11-01 00:30

arjan wrote:I dont get people.

Javelin is realistic, and this mod is called Project ''Reality''?
In real life army doesnt say;
''hey, we cant issue our troops powerfull anti tank missiles/launchers becouse it would kill their tank quik you know''

If you really want to balance things out becouse its so ''overpowered'' think of a way to balance it in another way for example; the NZDF have good AT, but the enemie has better (something else)

I have yet to see an Army, which bases it's (AT) weaponry, on what would be the most balanced, so that it could be implented in a videogame. It must be a really nice Army, if they don't want to make 11 year old keyboard warriors cry and smash their screens, because they got owned by a fire-and-forget weapon.

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 2009-11-01 13:04

Lol

The Effective range is 75 to 2500m I don't know if you can even see that far in PR. This is why I think it hasn't been added yet because their will be no escape for enemy amour "its thermal targeting allows the Javelin to be a fire-and-forget system."

If we are following youre logic about range, im asking myself why do we have jets ingame then.
they operate on a to small map. it makes no sence saying stuff about distance in PR and why it wouldnt be added, becouse everything should be scaled down in this engine

Fockzhound · Post by **Fockzhound** » 2009-11-02 22:21

I also suggest using the 84, as this is the mainstay of the NZDF man portable anti-(tank)armor arsenal. In addition, the huge cost to the NZDF for each Javlin round may mean that it would only ever seldom be used in combat. The 84 is a competent practical and cheaper alternative for use in NZ´s non-conventional conflict environments.

-.-Maverick-.- · Post by **-.-Maverick-.-** » 2009-11-02 22:23

How about the Javelin takes a long *** time to deploy and the player carrying it is super slow. And its a super restricted kit that has like a 20 min spawn time or more. I think that would balance it pretty good.

Javelin?

Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?

Re: Javelin?